Apple Says Spotify Wants 'Limitless Access' to App Store Tools Without Paying

[koil]

Um, yeah. You're in the market as a competitor to them. When you undertake that, you should surrender certain anticompetitive practices, including effectively charging your competitor to compete with you on your own platform. You should also forfeit the right to use the Settings app to advertise your own services, but that's another story for another day...

Well put, and honestly a very basic point that I don't understand how it's taken this long to settle in court. I guess Apple have good lawyers...

Why can I install anything on windows, Mac, Linux; but Apple wants to charge?

Don't forget Android. iOS is literally the only general-purpose OS where you have to pay the troll toll.

Because Apple set up the tools for Spotify to even have access to be eligible to be priced out of the market?

Spotify predates the App Store by 1.5 years, hell it predates the iPhone itself by half a year.

 

[koil]

What “essential” service is Spotify providing again?

The App Store fees have only been reduced since it opened, so how are people being “taken advantage of” today vs 15 years ago?

You make no sense 😂

I believe they're talking about the iPhone, not Spotify. Having a smartphone is mandatory today, and as such it isn't acceptable that the second-place player (which they got to by having the best UX and design, not by having a gated App Store) isn't allowing users access to the device they purchased.

 

[AndiG]

Apple wants to fight competition by any means necessary. If this wouldn‘t be true, Apple would have switched business models or introduced a new one, simple as that.

If Apple would introduce a new business model that ist service oriented (like Amazon AWS or thousands of other companies) we would have:
- Push Notification fee (increasing with the number of PN)
- In App Payment fee
- App hosting fee
- you name it …

This way Apple could create a fair competition and would really get paid for the services it offers. But Apple wants to use its platform as a weapon to lock competition out.

It's time for Timmy to leave. We need new people to lead Apple into the future and bring in fresh ideas.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple should tell Spotify to pound sand and then kick them the eff off the App Store

I can’t wait. Especially with the DMA in force.
The EU would fine Apple even harder.

Apple lawyers need to reposition the lawsuit. Stop calling it an ‘App Store’ Fee …

Lawsuit? What lawsuit? It‘s a (potential) regulatory fine.

The fee charged by Apple is for software development, maintenance and testing, and product awareness, distribution and fulfillment. If Spotify does not want to pay, then those services should be revoked… 1. all the software APIs, development & testing platforms, guidance on Ux design, etc. critical to making their software function

I can‘t wait. Especially with the DMA „mandating fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores“

Want to be clever and move charging a layer further down (from a forced commission on sales) to software development? Let‘s see how popular their platform will be with developers, once they charge all Spotify the same as other developers for development of software.

 

[prasand]

Apple wants to fight competition by any means necessary. If this wouldn‘t be true, Apple would have switched business models or introduced a new one, simple as that.

If Apple would introduce a new business model that ist service oriented (like Amazon AWS or thousands of other companies) we would have:
- Push Notification fee (increasing with the number of PN)
- In App Payment fee
- App hosting fee
- you name it …

This way Apple could create a fair competition and would really get paid for the services it offers. But Apple wants to use its platform as a weapon to lock competition out.

It's time for Timmy to leave. We need new people to lead Apple into the future and bring in fresh ideas.

Funny, I was thinking that Apple should do an itemized expense list, and invoice Spotify. The fee of which would cover what Apple would have collected if Spotify did do in-App payments. And then, just let Spotify do in-app for free or direct people to their site.

If Spotify doesn’t pay the bill for the resources they use, then, their account should be suspended.

 

[AlmightyKang]

This is a great point but is exactly the reason Apple has neutered PWAs, so the big platforms can't circumvent the AppStore on iOS devices. Apple are greedy, malicious and anti-competition (which in turn, plays out to be anti-consumer).

There are technical reasons for that you know? And they're not exactly neutering them, just making them safe to run within the app level sandbox. You're pretty much just parroting the current conspiracy garbage.

I literally work for a company that ships a PWA. This does not bother us in the slightest. There are thousands of people offended on our behalf.

 

[pastrychef]

Spotify already won. They got the EU to force Apple to allow side-loading. They will soon be able to leave the Apple App Store forever and never pay Apply anything again.

Why are they still complaining??

 

[AlmightyKang]

Most people have learned that HOAs are to be avoided if at all possible, because Karen the HOA busybody is going to be running around with a ruler and fining people for having their grass 1cm too tall or their curtains the wrong color.

If you like living in a HOA, congrats, you're the Karen.

The point is you didn't have to live in an area with an HOA. You consciously moved in to it.

Same with these people and app stores.

You don't have to build a business in it.

 

[prasand]

Spotify already won. They got the EU to force Apple to allow side-loading. They will soon be able to leave the Apple App Store forever and never pay Apply anything again.

Why are they still complaining??

because they actually don’t want to be side-loaded. They want the ease of discovery, download / distribution … without paying for anything but a small developer annual fee.

 

[treacher]

Apple is not asking for much, they do a lot of work to create their premium ecosystem.

 

[koil]

Spotify already won. They got the EU to force Apple to allow side-loading. They will soon be able to leave the Apple App Store forever and never pay Apply anything again.

Why are they still complaining??

Because Apple hasn't complied yet? What they have announced so far is not compliant.

 

[pastrychef]

Because Apple hasn't complied yet? What they have announced so far is not compliant.

The EU said it's not compliant?

 

[truthsteve]

Developers have the choice to not release on iOS, too.

Exactly. Developers *SHOULD* leave but they don't. I don't understand why they can't just all band together and leave all at the same time to force change.

I'm all for market forces speaking 100%.

"Wait no... not like that... you're making iOS inferior by only releasing on the web..."

Don't know what this quote is supposed to accomplish.

If all the iOS developers left, I'd leave iOS and buy an Android for native apps. See how that works? Let the market speak, not the gov.

 

[originalmagneto]

There are technical reasons for that you know? And they're not exactly neutering them, just making them safe to run within the app level sandbox. You're pretty much just parroting the current conspiracy garbage.

I literally work for a company that ships a PWA. This does not bother us in the slightest. There are thousands of people offended on our behalf.

Can you elaborate?

 

[prasand]

Why doesn't Spotify (or hell, most everyone else) want to be in the Mac App Store, then? That's got the ease of discovery, download, and distribution.

People don’t really use the Mac App Store, at least no where near as much as people use the non-Mac App Store.

For Spotify to go the way of Mac … users would have to become accustomed to either side loading, or another App Store on iOS would have to become popular for average people.

That’s time that Spotify can’t afford. Maybe one day that will be viable, but no time soon. Until then, they have no desire to not be on the App Store.

It’s a different paradigm with Mac vs iOS. People “started” using Macs “side loading” programs. That’s the standard so the Mac App Store never really changed that. Conversely, people started downloading iOS apps through the App Store, and similarly, that won’t really change either.

I don’t really see a time where Spotify will ever want to “not” be on the App Store. Because most people aren’t tech savvy and won’t shift to side loading in a major way.

 

[koil]

The EU said it's not compliant?

The EU said it will not make any judgement until the ruling is in effect on March 7th, but that they would look at it after.

Since the DMA requires interoperability "free of charge", the Core Technology Fee they suggest should be in violation of the DMA.

The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability
with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.

Link to DMA PDF, above is on page 36

 

[tehabe]

Playing devil’s advocate, you list products on Amazon, Amazon gets a cut as the vehicle to get the product to the customer.

Without the iPhone, the user base of Spotify would drastically shrink. Spotify is paying for butts in the seats.

So, iPhones are free for consumers now? Last I got one paid for it. And Apple wants Spotify to pay for it again.

 

[SanderEvers]

The EU said it will not make any judgement until the ruling is in effect on March 7th, but that they would look at it after.

Since the DMA requires interoperability "free of charge", the Core Technology Fee they suggest should be in violation of the DMA.


Link to DMA PDF, above is on page 36

That is a VERY selective quote.

Only the next paragraph:

The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.

If that paragraph didn't exist Apple measures would've been against the legislation. Fortunatly for Apple they exist.

Apple could for example justify it be saying that notarisation is required for security and that the core platform fee is required for development of their operating system. Then it would end in a long lawsuit between the EU and Apple to proof if those requirements are justified. And that is going to take years.

 

[Ubuntu]

Spotify is a big baby.

They want access to Apple's user base that Apple risked billions setting up, have Apple pay for all of the infrastructure for serving Spotify app and notifications, and they take 100% of the revenue.

So stupid. Apple deserves their cut.

They do, but IMO the real problem here is they have a competing app that doesn't need to pay that 30% cut.

 

[koil]

That is a VERY selective quote.

Only the next paragraph:

Indeed, they are allowed to build solutions that protect users, but they can't place the cost of developing or applying such measures on apps distributed externally, as that would be in violation of the paragraph I linked.

 

[prasand]

So, iPhones are free for consumers now? Last I got one paid for it. And Apple wants Spotify to pay for it again.

Spotify’s $99 annual developer cost is no way near enough to cover the server costs of millions of users downloading their app and updates every week (they on average release an update weekly).

 

[koil]

Spotify’s $99 annual developer cost is no way near enough to cover the server costs of millions of users downloading their app and updates every week (they on average release an update weekly).

But there would be €0 in server costs for Apple when Spotify are distributing the app themselves...

Regardless. Charge Spotify for the cost of the network traffic and storage of their apps, that would be super reasonable. Taking 30% of Spotifys revenue is not anywhere near a reasonable cost for this.

 

[tehabe]

"includes" is what Apple provides for the program. $99 is not how much it costs to cover those expenses. Spotify submitted 40+ updates last year. App Store reviewer makes, what? $20/hr? one submission is about 30 min work? 20 hours x $20 = $400. Fine make it 5 hours. 5 hours x $20 = $100. Then there's server costs and a bunch of other things.

$99/year is practically nothing. if you're going to say Apple is lying over a technicality, then that's a pretty weak argument.

There is nothing preventing Apple from charging a single developer something different than a corporate one. Instead of $99 per year it could also be $99 per month.

 

[AlmightyKang]

Can you elaborate?

It literally says why in the documentation. No one reads it

So the point is that Safari was treated as a special case to deliver the functionality as they have control over the browser implementation and the sandboxing and security model so they are not violating any trust boundaries. If they cannot control the browser implementation then any special cases have to be removed because the trust boundary can not be assured. This is to avoid permission escalation attacks.

An example attack would be that you visit a web page and allow microphone access. Once this is granted to an "app" then this is a permanent grant unless specified otherwise. If you're using a non-Safari browser this can be exploited by the home screen apps running under the same context to record you.

Ergo, this is the best security posture.

Really I think the whole home screen apps thing was a misfeature in the first place and they had to kill it.

 

[prasand]

But there would be €0 in server costs for Apple when Spotify are distributing the app themselves...

They’ll never do that. Absolutely never. It would require new users to use Safari to discover Spotify and download that way. When users would be more likely to search on the App Store, and use whatever app they find on there. That’s a lot of customers Spotify would be missing out on if they did that.

You’re imagining a completely unrealistic ideal of where, Spotify makes their app available via web … and then suddenly “every” one of their users just automatically switches to side loading Spotify, and “new” users just know “I never heard much of Spotify I’m a new user, but let me go to Spotify’s website and download their app.”

How does Spotify reach those new customers if only people who go to their site through safari can download or even learn about it? They’d lose a whole lot of new customer potential to a competitor that are on the App Store, if they ever did that.

The only way it would work is if another App Store competitor on iOS became just as big / popular as Apple’s. Otherwise, Spotify will “never” willingly leave the App Store.